The Pink Ceiling: Workplaces Rigged against Early and Mid-Career Men

Lrandomvis on 21/09/2023 - 21:00
Last edited 22/09/2023 - 16:46

This is partially to inform but also vent at how rigged modern workplaces are against young men. In my (33M) final year working in the university system I realised how far we have tipped the scales towards favouring women. Part of the reason I quit was I came across information regarding promotion statistics for lecturer, senior lecturer and associate professors in my faculty of science and engineering— men had a 30% chance of promotion within a given cycle while women had 100%. That's right. 100%.

In the past, the figure hovered over 50% for both men and women. This bias (along with other reasons) resulted in a mini exodus in the faculty of early to mid-career male academics into industry. But after speaking with young guys in industry working for larger companies (we are looking at those ASX 200 companies with strong emphasis on ESG points), these discriminatory policies are almost universally adopted to get women into future leadership positions at the expense of men. I don't blame the women for taking advantage of such a rigged system, how could you? But, this young male demoralization will lead to some severe societal consequences.

Honestly, if the game is so rigged, why play it? I don't see these practices disappearing or even lessening in the near future so I'm working for a small company now. But, I aim on founding my own sole-tradership to avoid this whole gender political circus.

So, if your son is entering the workforce in the next 10 years what would you tell them?

Play the game and claim female status?
Recommend they just put up with the discriminatory practices?
Work for smaller companies?

===== Edit ====
Let's clarify a few things because it appears that a trend of name calling and preconceived notions have set root. Typical OzBargain groupthink. I'll clarify the main topics here:

You are making excuses about your own ability, you are terrible at your job.

You can believe I'm incompetent if you want, I won't lose sleep over this.

Look at the official statistics

I've seen the internal statistics at my university. Yes what I'm presenting anecdotal, but that hard ceiling that all young men would encounter at that institution exists whether you shove a booklet in my face or not.

You are an Incel, you are whining like a woman, you are not a man, you are a misogynist, you're an Andrew Tate fan, you are a "gardener" (do you think gardeners are stupid?), you are a liar etc…

Given the reaction here, most people either don't care that I uncovered obvious institutional discrimination or have resorted to name calling. Even if I were an incel or a misogynist or god forbid, an Andrew Tate fan, that is irrelevant. I'm looking out for young guys who have are now on the end of a long line of affirmative actions. Looking out for my son— your sons… It's this societal response which is why so many young men out there are just giving up. Going NEET, going 'incel', going MGTOW, MRA whatever the latest trend is— these movements are destroying men here in this country.

You hate women.

I don't know how this became a preconceived notion— to stand up for young men, instantly means you hate women. Sure.

You don't know how statistics work, was there only one woman.

I should have been clearer. There was a sample size of around 40 women and about 60 men.

Education & Work

Comments

        • GG57 on 22/09/2023 - 15:13

          Does that mean that you can't go anywhere?

    • DingoBilly on 22/09/2023 - 15:13
      +7

      Complains about cultural Marxist dominance.

      Also complains about a paywalled news article and suggests how to get around it to avoid paying a company.

      A true mental gymnast.

    • SBOB on 22/09/2023 - 15:39
      +9

      Cultural Marxist dominance of Australia

      i love when people just repeat catch phrases they read or heard (mostly in rather fringe media or social media sources) because they think they understood the reference or it sounded cool, regardless if it aligns with the discussion points or not

    • morse on 24/09/2023 - 04:26

      A lot of those ‘top law firms’ are known to have horrendous workplace culture (terrible for lifestyle, wellbeing and mental health, for men and women). Culture that has been largely historically formed by a male dominated workforce, in number but also tradition. Perhaps the quotas (if and where they exist), are actually about other changes the organisation wants to see in the workplace, rather than solely being for the benefit of women.

      • SpainKing on 24/09/2023 - 22:27

        Bringing women in to a corporation doesn't magically gradually fix it's problems. A horrendous workplace culture can be formed by a man or a woman or both or a team with just one or a mix. Even if they were all from different countries

        You're really discounting women's historical contribution to culture and society today. The world wouldn't be perfect if it was all men, all women or 50% of each in government, corporations etc. Look at sororities and the hazing they do on their fellow female. Getting told to strip down and having every aspect of their body critiqued. You might counter with "that's because the Greek culture they base sororities off of was formed by (majority) men". There's no men on the inside to perpetuate that system so why does it continue to happen?

        • morse on 25/09/2023 - 07:49

          Bringing women in to a corporation doesn't magically gradually fix it's problems.

          That’s up to the ‘top law firm’ or whoever the employer is to assess. Their business, they decide the strategy. The culture I was referring to was specific to those law firms.

          • SpainKing on 25/09/2023 - 15:14

            @morse: Unless the problem assessed is "why aren't both these numbers 50%!" I don't know what power the vagina magically grants these women.

            One could say that their experience in the world is different from men's which shapes their views. But that implies that all men have the same experience and views. You could have a woman and man employed with 80% of their ideas overlapping. Or two men with 20% of idea overlap, etc.

            Glad to hear they're addressing the poor aspects of their work culture. It'd be hard enough not to burn out in a law firm with all the documents to go through. A poor workplace culture is just going to lead to a vicious cycle of dissatisfaction and poorer culture

  • BluebirdV on 22/09/2023 - 15:13

    Identify as non-binary. Problem solved.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 22/09/2023 - 15:31

      Problem created in the case of Victorian Police officers.

  • FezMonkey on 22/09/2023 - 15:40
    +6

    So OP since you are totally against workplace discrimination based on gender and will call it out as you see it, I trust that before the workplace was rigged against men you were venting about it being rigged against your female colleagues?

    Surely you were threatening to quit then as well, in solidarity with the women experiencing discrimination?

    Or did you stay quiet since it wasn't adversely affecting you personally?

    • randomvis on 30/09/2023 - 13:30
      -2

      it, I trust that before the workplace was rigged against men you were venting about it being rigged against your female colleagues?

      I was a child when that was the case, it no longer is.

      Do you apologise for the sins of your forefathers?

  • Caped Baldy on 22/09/2023 - 16:03
    +1

    Have you considered being angry at the old farts not retiring?

    • locknuts on 25/09/2023 - 08:53

      At a Uni? They can't wait to retire. Most of the oldies are on the guaranteed super pension thing instead of a normal modern super arrangement.

  • Carmen Sandiego on 22/09/2023 - 16:10
    +5

    As someone who is identifies as female, not white, and disabled - what is this post?
    As someone who works for several ASX listed companies - I can tell you most of the management, especially middle and upper levels, are male. 90% of my direct contacts are male.
    As someone who works in a very large global company - most of my management is male, but they have definitely made steps to even it out fairly, which has cause the culture to feel more welcoming than the smaller company I was working for previously. Most of the management in this industry (financial/insurance) tends to be male

    As for what I would just say to you - please stop reading things that pit gender bias and touch grass. Also, the Barbie movie is not an affront to your "masculinity".

    • SlickMick on 22/09/2023 - 22:09

      No one has any issue with the fact that there are more male managers. … oh wait, okay some do, but this it not OPs point. The issue is that jobs are not being given to the most qualified, but the one that meets a quota.

      As someone asked, why is gender or race even asked when applying for a job?

      • morse on 24/09/2023 - 05:26
        -1

        The issue is that jobs are not being given to the most qualified

        This issue is that OP says jobs are not being given to the most qualified - not established as fact.

        Also race is not typically asked in recruitment processes in Australia see https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/801224?page=2#comment-1433…

        • SlickMick on 24/09/2023 - 09:19

          Firstly, the OP has a point whether you want to consider it or not. It would take a mighty big coincidence for 100% of women and only 30% of men to be selected if the sample included > 1 woman.

          Secondly, I've applied for a lot of jobs and each one has queried my race. Specifically, they want to know whether I'm Aboriginal. Sure, they might have other reasons for asking, but they do ask.

          • morse on 24/09/2023 - 09:26
            -1

            @SlickMick: OP has a point - but it might not be a well thought out one. To me it shows lacking insight, ability to understand context and the nuances of being successful.

            Asking if you’re are Aboriginal or not is not asking your race. It’s asking if you identify as Aboriginal or not. Asking your race would be like what they do in the US where they have categories like ‘white’ ‘black’ ‘Hispanic’ ‘Asian’. In Australia they ask about country of birth for identity and work entitlement reasons. Sometimes they may ask ‘ethnicity’ but even this is uncommon in Australia. My employees has an optional tick box around diversity factors, and even that I don’t think includes culturally and linguistically diverse as an option.

        • OzBarAnon on 26/09/2023 - 17:32

          You don't even have to ask about race in any overt sense. Just do a face-to-face interview and you've got a ?90% accuracy rate from just looking at them.

  • dmac on 22/09/2023 - 16:17
    +2

    Which is it?
    a) there is no hiring bias
    b) there is but it's deserved

    • SpainKing on 24/09/2023 - 22:30

      There is a hiring bias but it's okay as the women said so. Us men just need to shut up and look pretty and not worry our little gossip filled brains. We have our hair to worry about

  • Korban Dallas on 22/09/2023 - 16:44
    +3

    Times a changing. Look at all those graduate intake photos on LinkedIn from big multinationals or state govt.

    Most are women or ethnic. Be hard pressed to find a white Australian male.

    They aren't even trying to hide it.

  • Sweet3st on 22/09/2023 - 18:28
    +5

    When I was a young person I worked in a research project for a couple of years and developed an original assay technique. The assay received a fair bit of attention when the research was published. A job was advertised looking for someone to establish this assay at another institution. I thought I must have the job! I remember sitting in front of a panel of 3 old men who told me kindly? that while I was obviously by far the most qualified applicant they were giving the position to a man because he had a family to support and I would probably just get married anyway. Talk about a rigged system! But now it's so unfair for men 😢

    • R4 on 22/09/2023 - 20:50
      +6

      That was wrong back then but that doesn't make the opposite right today.

      • morse on 24/09/2023 - 05:29

        Except we haven’t actually established that the opposite is happening. OP is asserting this with some self made data and their thoughts and beliefs around affirmative action.

    • xsacha on 23/09/2023 - 02:41
      +1

      Having experienced this, why would you wish for the opposite to happen. Surely who you have to support, whether you will stay in the job and such should be up to the person and not the company.

    • drfuzzy on 23/09/2023 - 10:24

      I've seen the opposite happen today to reduce competition in protected industries.
      Positions intentionally created for younger women, armed with the knowledge that many will leave to start a family or want to work part time. This will then reduce the competition for the incumbent men who remain, limit competition from younger men, and demonstrate the old guard are increasing competition with new headcount (part time women).

    • randomvis on 30/09/2023 - 13:34
      -2

      This is the problem, the tit for tat mentality. Just because you experienced discrimination means we should discriminate men?

      Does it mean my experience is any less valid?
      Does my experience make your experience less valid?

      No. But the issue I'm having is that most of this criticism fails to recognise my problem as an actual problem, but rather the solution to the past perceived wrongs. How is that fair?

      • Sweet3st on 03/10/2023 - 18:54
        +2

        Well it's all about you isn't it?
        It's OK women got a raw deal for most of recorded history along with loss of opportunity, loss of self esteem, while the clubs of privilege and power were skewed towards men. Obviously we can't get away with that anymore so let's just draw a line in the sand now, I'll keep the advantages I have, you keep the advantages you (don't) have, and from now on everything will be even steven!
        It's a bit like some comments on the Voice… we should all be treated EQUAL (from now). We'll just keep what we've got now (aren't we lucky!), indigenous folk get to keep what they have now (not very much). That's fair right?

        • randomvis on 03/10/2023 - 19:08

          agree with me or you are a racist

          Ok— Let's just kill young white people and make young men suffer to correct for what the people who are now in graves have done.

  • hawkshead on 22/09/2023 - 20:24
    -1

    maybe men should just go away and form a commune somewhere in the woods and leave us all alone.

  • R4 on 22/09/2023 - 20:49
    +3

    This is exactly what's happening in the big mining companies in WA - if you're a white male, you're going to be overlooked in preference to Females and minorities. Just walking through one of their head offices would show you this reality. The thing is, a lot of the women know this to be true. Some are happy with it, others not so much. I'm happy to stay as a technical specialist contractor and earn more than my full-time peers and some of my managers. There's also more work for me than you could shake a stick at.

    I was kind of ambivalent about this, and still am to a large degree, but my son is in the infantry - and serves with female infantry soldiers. Yep, that's right, female infantry. WTF is that all about? Whoever thought that this was a good idea is a fkng moron. I have no problem with women in the military - flying planes, driving tanks, sailing ships, but infantry soldiers? That's just imbecilic and if (when) we go to war, is going to get a lot of our people killed unnecessarily. Mental.

    • Sweet3st on 22/09/2023 - 22:56
      +5

      So you're saying the women will make such bad soldiers they'll get lots of people killed? You just can't see your prejudice and misogyny, like a lot of men. This is all about hanging on to gender roles that confer male privilege.

      • Caped Baldy on 22/09/2023 - 23:27
        +3

        It's a physical job. The top females are like 70% percentile of the average man in terms of strength

        • infinite on 23/09/2023 - 17:57
          +2

          Morons and science-deniers can't comprehend basic facts like that.

          • Sweet3st on 27/09/2023 - 19:40
            +1

            @infinite: Thanks! I'm a university trained scientist with postgraduate qualifications. How about you?

      • greatlamp on 23/09/2023 - 09:56
        +3

        There is no problem with female infantry as long as the standards for men and women are the same, which would naturally mean that only a maximum 30% would be accepted.

        However when this is called 'discrimination' the standards are lowered to achieve a 50:50 distribution.

        This is all about hanging on to gender roles that confer male privilege.

        You are being ridiculous here. There is no privilege in being in the infantry in our society

        • R4 on 24/09/2023 - 11:34
          +1

          Exactly. When you lower standards for something like infantry, people die. End of. When you boil it down, It's a 'job' whose primary role is ultra-violence - and if you're not better, stronger, fitter than your opposition, you die. A bit dramatic maybe, but true.

      • OzBarAnon on 26/09/2023 - 17:34
        +1

        Pit a platoon of men against a platoon of women in a level playing-field combat situation and see which one comes out on top. It's going to be the men, and you can cry about bigotry all you want, but that's the truth.

    • TheRealCher on 23/09/2023 - 13:17

      Just want to check - the mining industry in WA is dominated by women? (Let's leave Gina to the side)

      • R4 on 23/09/2023 - 16:29
        +2

        At managerial level it's heading that way, yes.

      • mitt on 23/09/2023 - 19:42
        +2

        Its the middle management/administrative side, but yes.

        The top execs remain mostly men because to hit those positions you have to be a cut-throat ultra-bastard which means mostly awful men with a smattering of equally awful women willing to compete in the a-hole Olympics. Actual field work remains mostly men because you have to be a special kind of insane to endure FIFO work & the intermittent isolation. Not to mention the strain of long hours/hard labour.

        But middle management? That's where that effort:remuneration sweet spot is & its where the company can pump up those quotas.

    • locknuts on 25/09/2023 - 08:57
      +2

      We're already below population replacement reproductive levels and we're sending our women to be shot and blown up. Genius.

      • FezMonkey on 25/09/2023 - 11:33

        They are not being "sent", they are choosing to join the military.
        What are you proposing exactly? That they be forced to remain home and breed?

    • MessyG on 25/09/2023 - 18:11

      You're kind of making the assumption there though that women and minorities are not right for the job while white men are. Women and minorities have had to jump through excessive hoops just to get a seat at the table over the last 50 years and are now so trained up at being all-rounders that they're getting the jobs.

      • R4 on 25/09/2023 - 20:14
        +1

        I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that women and minorities are being promoted because they're women and minorities - that's the main criteria for their promotion. Of course they need ability but that's not the main driver.

  • lonewolf on 22/09/2023 - 20:58
    +4

    I have been working at a University for 24 years now and this is actually true despite what some people may think. Its amazing how much it has changed over those decades in terms of the % of men and women working at a Univeristy, There are some departments which are completely female now and the last time a male worked there was a homosexual male and basically after a couple of years he left, he said it was due to bullying from the other staff in the department.

    • randomvis on 30/09/2023 - 13:48
      -1

      Gender issues aside, the university system is going to get a rude awakening in the next 10 years.

      There are about 600,000 international students in Australia, each one paying WAYYY more than what the course is worth. Universities, who are all listed as charities (go look up any university's ABN if you don't believe me) are lowering entry standards and consequentially lowering course passing requirements, dumbing down curriculum and examination to attract the maximum number of students. They are fat and addicted to this money rolling in. To do this they pump up research, create these 'global consortiums' and put less emphasis on teaching to push themselves up on the global university rankings— Ironically to gain more students.

      Now, the pandemic exposed one major flaw to this system, online learning.

      These global ivy league universities understand the opportunity. They are making mass produced online degrees / micro credentials for only a few thousand dollars. To take these same courses in Australia would be ten's of thousands of dollars.

      So, if you are a highschooler now looking at the future. Which would you rather have? Credentials from MIT for a few thousand dollars or pay tens of thousands of dollars for a sub-par experience at a local Australian university. I know if It had to do it again which I'd choose.

      But universities have grown big and VC's can only think in terms of expansion. MORE CAMPUSES, MORE BUILDINGS, MORE STUDENTS. We have declining local demographics so this will have to be the case as we have hit every possible global student market. The next 10 years we will see accelerating forced contractions. Mergers and closures of universities are not out of the question.

  • Viper8 on 22/09/2023 - 21:40
    +12

    I work for an ASX10 company. All levels of management have gender quota KPI's. In some trades or technical disciplines there really isn't that many women. So we have hiring programs aimed exclusively at hiring women, regardless of experience or education (yes, they literally promote that aspect of it). For regular roles, we require that 1 of the final 2 candidates be a women, and 2 in 3 new hires are women, even if you're say after engineers, IT specialists, etc - fields which are overwhelmingly male dominated. Yet there's no interest in pushing for more men to get into admin, finance, etc. Women make senior at around 5 years, men at around 10. Everyone knows all of this, its frequently discussed by both genders at drinks or coffee, some leaders even confidentially spill the beans on specific cases, but if you dared state any of these facts in a neutral and objective manor openly in the workplace then according to our policies you'd be getting in major trouble. Questions challenging the companies agressive and discriminatory tactics often appear anonymously at town halls and are some of the most upvoted questions (execs play ignorant to the specifics whilst doubling down on the stratergy and vision).

    Just sharing because in some workplaces, what OP states is very much a real thing.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2023 - 11:00
      +1

      Sounds pretty intense, I've seen a lot of the minors advertising on Seek as 'Female only opportunity' sounds about right.

      • Korban Dallas on 23/09/2023 - 12:35

        Stating female only in job adverts is going to get you in hot water.

      • Viper8 on 23/09/2023 - 15:49
        +3

        It most cases that's illegal. Our female only programs aren't publicly advertised as such. So the majority of the applicants are unknowingly completely wasting their time unfortunately.

  • sp3ctr41 on 22/09/2023 - 21:51
    +14

    You're not wrong OP, you will recieve flak here, and so will I, because 50% of the population is women, but then also some of the men will pile on, so it's a no-win scenario. As a successful male in engineering, I have seen female hires time and time again where a better qualified male was more suitable, but the female was chosen to fill some bullshit 50/50 quota. I've also seen government tenders demanding a team where women are represented, forcing the push from consultancies.

    Let's not pretend that women are hired on their merits. If you're actually in any STEM field, you will see that they have every advantage over men, and for any position, if a man and woman were to compete with exactly the same extracirriculars, skills and experience, the woman would win 100% of the time just to fill diversity numbers. The reason we don't see as many women in these positions, is because guess what, there's less women pursuing these positions, it's that simple, there's no discrimination.

    I'm not saying that women are not capable, I have met very capable women that I even aspire to, but what I am saying is that, if men make up 80% of engineers at the university level, it's fair to expect that at the workplace, 80% SHOULD be men, and anything else is factual discrimination against men. The entire focus should be on encouraging women into STEM instead of forcing a quota in the workplace. I'm luckily not affected by this because I'm relatively high up in my career, but let's call a spade a spade.

    • blushingelephant2 on 25/09/2023 - 14:29
      -3

      if a man and woman were to compete with exactly the same extracurriculars, skills and experience, the woman would win 100% of the time just to fill diversity numbers

      Yet senior leadership in almost all companies is overwhemingly male. Even in female dominated sectors such a teaching, they've had to put in quotas in because men were taking up a majority of the the promotions. Men have had unfair advantages for ages and these new policies are designed to even out the playing field so hiring doesn't just become a "jobs for the boys" scenario. Studies have shown time and time again that diverse teams are smarter and perform better so it absolutely makes sense to choose female over a male if they have the exact same background (at least until gender targets are achieved).

  • AngoraFish on 22/09/2023 - 21:51
    -3

    100% of recent management hires at my place of employment have been male. That's fine, of course, because every one of those appointments was self-evidentially selected entirely on merit. The unfortunate reality is that women just aren't the best candidate very often. /sarcasm

    • sp3ctr41 on 22/09/2023 - 21:57

      Drop the "sarcasm", it's true, a key trait of being a manager is to not be agreeable, and by evolutionary nature, women are agreeable. This is why you see women getting ripped off when buying cars, whereas men will fight for a bargain. This is why you see men risk taking on crypto and gambling it all, while women are playing the safe game of dumping it into a HISA. This is why you see the majority of inmates are men and not women. It's these same traits that allows men to become more likely to be managers.
      Sure, there are women who are not "agreeable" and have what it takes to be a manager, but statistically, by far, men are far more likely to have the right skillset to be in that positon.

      • AngoraFish on 22/09/2023 - 22:01
        -1

        If your perception is that arseholes make good managers then you really need to reconsider your values.

        Also, https://www.projectmanagement.com/blog-post/42361/is-your-bo…

        • sp3ctr41 on 22/09/2023 - 22:05
          +3

          Huh? Nothing from what I said above says that the managers getting into those positions are "arseholes", and you've compeltely missed the point of what I tried to say and deflected to suit your own narrative.

          • AngoraFish on 23/09/2023 - 07:19

            @sp3ctr41: Your post is stuffed to the brim with essentialist, pseudo-scientific nonsense, but ultimately the point is pretty straightforward. Another word for someone who is "not agreeable" is someone who is disagreeable. The vernacular term for a disagreeable person is an arsehole. Simples.

            • SpainKing on 23/09/2023 - 11:54

              @AngoraFish: The several sites I saw when searching "define (profanity)" failed to mention being disagreeable. What I did get from Wikipedia was "The word is mainly used as a vulgarity, generally to describe people who are viewed as stupid, incompetent, unpleasant, or detestable.[8]"

              Also "All these white folks dressed so fine,
              Their ass-holes smell just like mine"

              • AngoraFish on 23/09/2023 - 14:25

                @SpainKing: disagreeable (adjective) dis·​agree·​able ˌdis-ə-ˈgrē-ə-bəl
                1: causing discomfort : unpleasant, offensive
                a disagreeable odor
                2: marked by ill temper : peevish
                a disagreeable person

                Which appears to track more or less exactly with your definition of stupid, incompetent, unpleasant, or detestable.

                Also see https://www.urbandictionary.com/ using the American spelling of arsehole, particularly definition #2 which also uncannily tracks the kind of personality that OP is describing.

                • SpainKing on 24/09/2023 - 22:57

                  @AngoraFish: That's weird, when I look up the definition of "secret" on Urban Dictionary it comes up first with:

                  "Can't tellya"

                  And the one following that:

                  "information u tell someone when u want it to become public knowledge by morning"

                  I gotta stop telling people to keep things a secret

                  OP was saying "men are less agreeable and take more risks than women which is why they're hired more as managers." I don't know of any data to back that claim up but they obviously aren't rallying for their to be more assholes in management and I personally consider an (profanity) to be more than just the sum of a person's agreeableness and risk tolerance. That'd be like calling me a runner because I run to the bus stop sometimes

                  Words change over time, have multiple definitions and no authoritative source to discern what is and isn't a correct use (much less Urban Dictionary). As such, arguing semantics gets everybody nowhere

      • FlyingMiffy on 22/09/2023 - 22:18
        +1

        So very wrong. Men are not necessarily better decision makers. Get a bunch of men around the table and you get similar logic, similar approaches to problem solving and you get similar outcomes day in day out. Get a blend of female and male leaders together and the quality of decision making improves drastically. And the reason is simple, you get a better range of perspectives, broader ideas to solve problems.

        Skillset is also a consequence of experience, you cant get better female candidates unless you give them the experience. So the question is, at what point do you break the cycle?

        • sp3ctr41 on 22/09/2023 - 22:21

          Care to share some actual data to back that up?

          From my experience, the majority of the time, we get men and women in a workshop and it's the men doing most of the talking (again, comes down to men being more aggressive and less agreeable by their nature). Again, this isn't all circumstances, but I have been in enough workshops to notice a pattern.

          • Ughhh on 25/09/2023 - 10:59
            -1

            @sp3ctr41: Most bullshitters are Good talkers and bad listeners.

        • SpainKing on 23/09/2023 - 11:55
          -1

          Excuse me, I would also like the data to support your claims

        • sakurashu on 24/09/2023 - 20:29
          +2

          Maybe broader ideas is not what is needed for some industries?

          Why would decision making from disparate views result in better decisions? Would it not just result in more dissembling/democratic voting and a subsequent slow of progress in any direction?

          You also have to consider the nature of risk and the gender differences in their approach to risk and how this applies to the industry in question…..

          If you are going to have any progress you need to "break the cycle" young or don't even bother - get young women to be more aggressive and risk-taking and interested in STEM fields at school and university

  • FlyingMiffy on 22/09/2023 - 22:13
    +2

    Meritocracy is important but when the vast majority of workplaces had or still have conditions that favour males, affirmative action or policy is necesary to enable re balance. It sucks when it impacts you but it also sucked for generations of women before you and with you in the workplace. I've been overlooked too and ive had to adhere to policy to favour female candidates for leadership roles that im recruiting for but hey, if you stop for a moment and look around, most workplaces are actually better off with a healthy blend of female and male leaders. Blame the times, blame the system, just remember, we said the same thing to women for generations and generations. Consider yourself lucky.

    • sp3ctr41 on 22/09/2023 - 22:23
      +3

      You've become so brainwashed by all this feminism nonsense your brain has fallen out. You even acknowledge that "you've been overlooked and had to adhere to policy to favour female candidates" and you're okay with it.

      Literally: "I'm being stepped on and that's okay!"

      Get out of here.

      All I'm arguing is, get hired for merits.

      • FlyingMiffy on 22/09/2023 - 22:32
        +2

        Haha you get personal really quickly dont you? You might need that big car or something to hang on to whats between your legs! Dont worry about me mate, if i ever feel that my career is in trouble, i'll do something about it. All you are arguing for is statusquo. And statusquo only ever favours those with something to lose.

        • sp3ctr41 on 23/09/2023 - 01:07
          +4

          When hiring why should anyone care who you are, where you come from, what you believe in or what's between your legs. Are you the best person for the job or not?

          Ofcoarse I'm not okay with the status quo, but you know the saying, the pendulum can only swing so far, it will swing back eventually.

          • ColtNoir on 23/09/2023 - 07:26
            +2

            @sp3ctr41: Who’s defining ‘what’s best’. Diversity, including gender helps with ideas and better ways of doing things. Have you ever been in a room of old white men all backing the same garbage idea, I have it’s infuriating but they all thought it was amazing.

            The issue we often have is the people deciding what’s best, are men who can’t always see past a vision of themselves rather than actually defining what success is.

            We all have bias and some of us can acknowledge it, others need to have it forced on them by policy.

            • greatlamp on 23/09/2023 - 09:25

              @ColtNoir: old white men, that is OPs point. To correct the imbalance these old men are not disadvantaged, it's the next generation, one that did not have the advantages of class, racial, and gender discrimination.

  • pufffdragon on 22/09/2023 - 23:54

    It's 2023. Just "identify" as a woman and reap those benefits.

    • AngoraFish on 23/09/2023 - 00:06
      +5

      If only men identifying as women reaped some actual benefits, other than being vilified in the Murdoch press and bashed in dark alleys by homophobes.

      • realjw on 24/09/2023 - 13:02
        +1

        Explain trans women crushing women in competitive sports(not just winning, crushing).

        • AngoraFish on 24/09/2023 - 14:58
          -1

          The fact that you find it compelling to imagine that someone might want to chop off their own dick just to win a sporting competition is a pretty dire reflection on your priorities and sense of perspective.

          • dmac on 24/09/2023 - 21:26

            @AngoraFish: You need to look at more news - it's happened quite a few times already and impacts women who for many have trained their whole adult lives.

            • AngoraFish on 24/09/2023 - 22:58
              -1

              @dmac: Nobody has done anything of the sort. There are a small number of instances were people transitioned for other reasons and have afterwards been competitive in sporting competitions.

              And here you are, harping on about it as if there's an epidemic of straight guys cutting off their peckers so they can get on the dais in women's track and field.

              If you were concerned about either women's sport or protecting people from harm you sure wouldn't be lurking in a men's rights thread taking cheap shots about edge cases that are already being dealt with by peak sporting associations, and with no need for hysterical intervention from your favorite angertainment "news" sources.

          • realjw on 25/09/2023 - 03:37

            @AngoraFish: You do realise that there is no requirement of either bottom surgery or HRT for males to compete in female sports?

            Not all trans people do bottom surgery, you are the ones bringing those up you freaking weirdo. Maybe instead of supporting a cause blindly in the name of social justice, learn more about transexuals first and what you are actually supporting, I can tell you know nothing about transexuals. Supporters like you make trans people look bad. You asked for people that reaped actual benefits, I laid one out and all you can do is ad hominem. Learn to not rely on your feelings and give actual facts.

        • SpainKing on 24/09/2023 - 23:02

          What about that weightlifter from New Zealand that was in the Olympics? I thought I heard she did pretty poorly

  • John Smith 30283115 on 23/09/2023 - 00:29

    Yes this is a serious issue and very real.

    However someone has to do the work and that will still be my son's and I.

    You must make sure to be in a role with exigent need. Need is the basis of employment.

  • SpicyStew on 23/09/2023 - 01:07
    +1

    While you "talk and lecture" about science and engineering, the men are out in the real world implementing it

  • ColtNoir on 23/09/2023 - 07:22
    +1

    You’ve gotta be kidding me. Our university system is failing if you can’t objectively look at this situation.

    In my experience the quality of men promoted vs the women promoted is massive. A woman will need more experience and education to get promoted than men.

    The tertiary education system relies on underpaying people. What you’ve also not taken into account is the likelihood of men to negotiate pay and not just accept the offer that comes in. Considering how many offers sent out wouldn’t be part of this stat, you’re glossing over details, additionally like others have stated regarding sample size is also a factor.

    This is another case of cherry-picking statistics to suit your agenda, yours being your average at best and are getting passed over by better qualified candidates.

    • sheepzpal on 25/09/2023 - 08:49

      "Woman will need more experience and education to get promoted than men"

      wtf? where is this logic from. Promotion is a competition mate where all sexes are competing against each other. It can be experience and education based but also networking/people skill based.

      • ColtNoir on 25/09/2023 - 14:09
        +1

        Where is this logic? Effing experience mate.

        Jobs are meant to be done on merits, not just ‘jobs for the boys’ which quite frankly happens far too often.

        So many numptys promoted.

        If you can’t see it, you’re probably part of the problem.

        • sheepzpal on 25/09/2023 - 15:42

          The fact that you said women need more experience and education than men to get promoted made you a numpty too.

          • ColtNoir on 26/09/2023 - 06:54

            @sheepzpal: I don’t see how seeing it firsthand and completing analysis on it, that showed the benchmark for women was higher makes me a numpty.
            Do better, mate. Or be part of the problem.

            • sheepzpal on 26/09/2023 - 08:55

              @ColtNoir: People will always have different amount of experience and education and promotion is not a basic equation mate. People like you with false beliefs are the real problem in society.

              • ColtNoir on 26/09/2023 - 11:10

                @sheepzpal: Hahaha. Keep those women in their place, huh? That’ll teach em.

                Is it fair that I’ve been paid $10-$20k+ more than women who are more experienced and qualified than I? Including one that was even mentoring me?

                Keeping your head in the sand and pretending there isn’t a problem, is the real problem in society.

  • serpserpserp on 23/09/2023 - 07:53
    +2

    OP could you please outline the man to woman ratio at your uni for the top 50 most powerful or highest paying jobs for context please.

  • Goodbyemoff on 23/09/2023 - 08:02
    +4

    I'll get a lot of hate for this.

    I have worked for many 'big build' projects. And unfortunately, because of contractual requirements (x% female required, x% this required, etc). I have seen many best fit candidates not hired because of their gender/background/etc.

    This extends to hiring contractors. Where the preferred company may miss out on a job even thought they are better and cheaper. To a more expensive and less effective company because they have the correct 'demographic'. We end up with a worse product, for more tax payer money.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2023 - 10:56
      +1

      Ahh the big build was notorious, remember hearing about that. It was like baking a cake on site all at taxpayers expense. The tunnel cannot be drilled until we have enough refugees, females and LGBTQI folk

  • greatlamp on 23/09/2023 - 09:15
    +3

    I heard it straight from the head of HR of an ASX100 company, at a conference (so clearly nothing to hide)

    They set a quota for 50:50 male:female

    When they don't get enough suitable female applicants, and I quote "we look again through the applications" and offer interviews to applicants who would otherwise not be good enough, if they were male.

    This was at a 'Data' conference in Melbourne. No consideration for the gender imbalance in the number of female graduates in IT.

    Conversely, the women I have met in senior leadership in other industries that have been excellent. (Not including HR).

    The solution should be blind hiring practices, not quotas

    • morse on 24/09/2023 - 05:40

      I heard it straight from the head of HR of an ASX100 company, at a conference (so clearly nothing to hide They set a quota for 50:50 male:female

      Let’s just assume this is true a) that you heard and recalled it correctly and b) they actually do this in reality and just don’t say they do as part of their brand and to satisfy their board.

      What does the head of HR of an ASX100 do? They work for the business. They serve the CEO in their goal of having a profitable business. They are not going to implement any strategy that does not support this. So from HR’s perspective there is a workforce benefit to the company in doing this. The women hired will be capable - they are just use positive actions to ensure they find them.

      • greatlamp on 24/09/2023 - 08:32

        What is your point?

        Where did I say the women hired would not be able to do the job?

        This thread is about discrimination, if you want to justify that you are going to need a better argument than "they can meet the minimum requirements too".

        Better skilled and more experienced workers are being turned away, spending more time unemployed, to appease a quota so the company can advertise how progressive they are - NOT because it makes them more effective. When there is a genuine need to only hire from one gender that is not discrimination, that isn't what is being discussed

        • morse on 24/09/2023 - 08:38

          I’m not justifying anything - I’m explaining how I believe senior executives in a large company think. And by your reaction it’s really clear where all these supposedly disenfranchised men are having issues in life and communication.

          • greatlamp on 24/09/2023 - 08:46

            @morse: Cute. "Just asking questions" are we? Too much of a coward to present a view as your own?

            I was very clear in my example, are you not familiar with the gender imbalance in IT degrees?

            If you are responding to my comment I assume your reply is in the context I presented. In this context you are supporting discrimination.

            • morse on 24/09/2023 - 13:25

              @greatlamp:

              Cute. "Just asking questions" are we? Too much of a coward to present a view as your own?

              This is exactly what I’m talking about. I don’t know how you behave at work. But if there’s even a sniff of this kind of communication, being persecutory, playing the victim and being bitter - people will run a mile and you won’t get opportunities, and it won’t have anything to do with the quality of your work or your gender.

              A colleague did call my work ‘cute’ once - I disappeared from that work unit pretty quick, as a experienced professional in my field the I have lots of opportunities and no time for being exposed to these kind of characters. He was a bitter one too.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join